Autonomous semantics
The Australian's op-ed piece on 'fascism' today argues implausibly the term is 'difficult to define' (at odds with any number of encyclopaedias and dictionaries that have no trouble with clear explanation) - and still manages to conflate the term with a conservative 'misunderstanding' of Socialism.
While trying to reclaim high ground over 'liberalism' (notably 'small l'), the argument contrives disdain for anyone who dares label 'the present policies of the Howard Government [as] fascist'. Critical use of the term 'fascist' as a rhetorical device is also 'a misuse and abuse of language' the writer alleges, while enthusiastically doing exactly the same with their own pet label, 'liberal'.
The contrived subtext is that Howard's party is to the writer the only one that stands for 'liberty', while its opponents of the Left are really 'fascists' themselves: in fact arguing that 'Fascists sought to worship the state and nation because they had lost their religious faith' is clearly a 'manipulation of language' effectively gutting the term of all of its agreed dictionary-defined meaning.
It is difficult not to see this article as active misinformation - dictionaries are readily available, and are the most-used tool of any writer. The author contrives an argument that Socialism and Fascism are identical, and dismisses critics who don't seem up to speed with his sudden redefinition of Fascism to a form of religious experience.
This is an autonomous reconstruction of semantics to deflect criticism of the current behaviour of the conservative government, (who somehow are now leading lights of 'individual autonomy' despite using their Senate majority to shut down debate on contentious issues and to centralise Commonwealth power at the expense of the States).
The writer (and those who for a moment believe such specious reasoning is credible) need only spend a few second's effort before finding a reputable and relevant definition of Fascism (with emphasis added):
1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime [...] that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
The unfortunately
strong resonance between the Howard government's activities and the 'standard' definition is
exactly the substance overlooked by the writer to fashion his argument.
Item posted by AutoEditor at 2:28 pm ::
